Anyone who counts on the government to give accurate accounts of the efficacy of taxpayer-funded programs, is–well–an idiot. Here is the proof. (HT: Vox Day)
Anyone who says, “Look at what the consensus says,” ignores more fundamental issues:
(a) On what basis does the “consensus” say this?
(b) How reliable is that basis?
(c) What vested interests, do the “consensus” have in making their claims?
(c) Does that claimed “benefit” justify the “cost”?
With anthropogenic global warming, the “consensus” has made a lot of noise–and demanded some very radical sociopolitical change, all in spite of scant hard evidence of their claims. Even the infamous “hockey stick” is suspect, as the data has “gone missing”. Worse yet, the evidence is mounting that there is tremendous fraud among the “scientists” who are in charge of the process.
We have yet to show conclusively that (a) global warming is man-made, (b) what component of global warming is man-made, and (c) the cost-benefit analysis of the proposed remedial schemes would be. If I tried to sell a product on such flimsy basis to any of my employers–past or present–I’d be laughed out of the office. And yet, President Obama hires “scientists” to head agencies, simply because they peddle such agendas.
The same is true for economic modeling. As someone who has studied economics, I can attest to the veracity of what Vox Day is saying: econometric models have not been shown to work, and yet governments at all levels continue to use them.
Much of the state government financial problems stem from relying on econometric modeling. Before the crash of 2000-2001, they relied on models that suggested certain levels of revenue and surplus. When the crash hit the fan, states faced serious shortfalls because revenue growth failed to match the predicted amounts.
Now, it’s even worse, as states are facing not only shortfalls in revenue growth, but rather declines in revenue.
A shortfall in revenue growth would be tantamount to a state having $1 billion in new revenue over last year, but having budgeted assuming $1.2 billion in growth.
Now, we are seeing the equivalent of having $700 million declining revenues, while budgets were made with the assumption of $1.2 billion in growth.
The latter problem is even more egregious for two reasons: (a) the fundamental structural imbalance for the immediate situation is higher, and (b) budgets for future years were constructed on the basis of growth from the $1.2 billion amount. Fixing the situation requires fundamental structural cuts.
Making matters worse, the situation is the same among international, federal, state, and local governments; large and small businesses; and–yes–families and individuals. Each group took on debt structures based on assumptions of future expectations. But those future expectations have not played out well.
This is why families have had to face job losses, foreclosures, short-sales, even bankruptcy.
This is why municipal governments have had to cut programs, jobs, and even fundamental services.
This is why state governments have had to cut funding for programs and services, and even lay off workers and cut salaries.
This is why businesses–large and small–have had to cut pay and jobs.
This is why governments–state, federal, and international–are relying on printed and borrowed money, in hopes that the economic situation will improve.
This is why governments–state, federal, and international–have an incentive to lie to you and tell you that the economy is in “recovery”.
After all, if the truth ever got out, then they might actually get called to account for their lies.